git_branch

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping behavior (local/remote/all) but does not disclose potential remote network access or output format. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. 'List local, remote, or all Git branches' efficiently conveys purpose and parameter scope in just six words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters, one enum, and an existing safety annotation, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. The only notable omission is the lack of any output format hint, though a branch-list result is fairly intuitive. No explicit default behavior is stated, but the schema covers the 'local' default.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explicitly names the branch_type enum values ('local, remote, or all'), adding meaning to the undocumented branch_type parameter. The repo_path parameter is already described in the schema, so the description's main added value is clarifying the branch_type semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('Git branches'), and explicitly names the three scope options: local, remote, or all. This unambiguously distinguishes the tool from sibling git tools like git_status or git_log, none of which list branches.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly signals when to use this tool: any time branches need to be listed. Because no sibling tool performs branch listing, exclusion guidance is unnecessary. It does not explicitly describe when not to use it, but the unique resource makes the context clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.